PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Our law on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of living in society and to allocate them among the members of society. (G.R. No. L-65295. March 10, 1987) Economic analysis of tort law focuses on the allocation of the risks of loss due to the destruction of property or injury to persons created by those activities. Tort law may be viewed as a system of rules designed to maximize wealth by allocating risks so as to minimize the costs associated with engaging in daily activities. (David W. Barnes and Lynn A. Stout, Economic Analysis of Tort Law, 1992 Ed., p. 27)

Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties which civilized society imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of status. The legal rights of each member of society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to an obligation to indemnify the injured party. The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which arise from contract rests upon the fact that, in cases of non-contractual obligation, it is the wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vincu

CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 9935, February 01, 1915 ] YU TEK & CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. BASILIO GONZALEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. FACTS: Seller sold 600 piculs of sugar to buyer. Because seller was not able to produce 600 piculs on his sugar plantation he was not able to deliver. ISSUE:  Is he liable? HELD:  Yes, because no specific lot of sugar can be pointed out as having been lost. Sugar here was still generic. (See De Leon v. Soriano, 47 O.G. Supp. to No. 12, p. 377). [Understood correctly, however, there can sometimes be the sale of a generic thing but the obligations till specific designation is made are naturally different.]

A thing is determinate when it is particularly designated or physically segregated from all others of the same class. The requisite that a thing be determinate is satisfied if at the time the contract is entered into, the thing is capable of being made determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties. (Art. 1460, Civil Code)

CASE DIGEST: 241 Phil. 358 THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 69259, January 26, 1988 ] DELPHER TRADES CORPORATION, AND DELFIN PACHECO, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND HYDRO PIPES PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS. FACTS: A and B were owners of a parcel of land. They leased the land to CCI, Inc. The lease contract provided that during the existence or after the term of the lease, the lessors (A and B) should first offer the same to the lessee and the latter has priority to buy under similar conditions. Later, CCI, Inc. assigned its rights in favor of Hydro, Inc., with the consent of A and B. Thereafter, a deed of exchange was executed by A and B, on the one hand and Delpher Corp., upon the other, whereby A and B conveyed to Delpher Corp. the leased property for 2,500 shares of stock of Delpher. On the ground that it was not given the first option to buy the leased property pursuant to the provision in the lease agreement, Hydro filed a complaint for reco

91Phil. 666 [ G.R. No. L-4402, July 28, 1952 ] CANUTO MARTIN, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA REYES AND PEDRO REVILLA, RESPONDENTS. DECISION. BENGZON, J.: Coming from the Court of Appeals for revision, this litigation presents two principal questions: the price at which the respondents were entitled to repurchase the property, and the exercise of such right within the period of redemption. Apparently issues of fact, they really depend upon legal points, as will presently be seen. According to the Court of Appeals, the respondents Pedro Revilla and Maria Reyes obtained from the La Previsora Filipina sometime before November 18, 1939 a loan of P6,500; and with the money, they paid the price of a lot, with improvements, which they had previously purchased from the Archbishop of Manila. And they mortgaged the property to La Previsora for the purpose of guaranteeing repayment of the debt in installments with interest at 12 per cent per annum. It turned out later that Mon

CASE DIGEST: 91 Phil. 666 [ G.R. No. L-4402, July 28, 1952 ] CANUTO MARTIN, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA REYES AND PEDRO REVILLA, RESPONDENTS. FACTS: A sold to B land, which at the time of sale did not belong to A. ISSUE: Is the sale valid? HELD: Yes, for the vendor need not own the property at the time of the perfection, it being sufficient that he be the owner at the time he is to deliver the object. The contention that there is no sale is rather too technical a viewpoint. The deed of sale may be placed in the same category as a promise to convey land not yet owned by the vendor –– an obligation which nevertheless may be enforced. The court cited American Jurisprudence to the effect that "it is not unusual for persons to agree to convey by a certain time, notwithstanding they have no title to the land at the time of the contract, and the validity of such agreements is upheld. In such cases, the vendor assumes the risk of acquiring the title, and making the conveyance, or responding in d

CASE DIGEST: 10 Phil. 286 [ G.R. No. 4237, March 05, 1908 ] SERAFIN UY PIAOCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE MCMICKING, SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ANTONIO R. BAYAN JU, YAP QUI CHIN, AND KHY PACK, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. FACTS: A corporate stockholder sold his share to another, but the sale has not yet been recorded in the books of the corporation. ISSUE: Is the sale valid? HELD: As between the seller and the buyer, the sale is perfectly valid since the seller was the owner of the corporate shares. However, as between the corporation and the buyer, the latter has acquired only an equitable title which may eventually ripen into a legal title after he presents himself to the corporation and performs the acts required by its charter or by-laws, and which are needed to effectuate the transfer. Similar questions have been discussed at length in many of the courts of last resort in the United States, and the better doctrine is well stated in the